ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSIOIN v. Seiden
Decision Date | 14 March 2003 |
Docket Number | Misc. Docket No. 19 |
Citation | 818 A.2d 1108,373 Md. 409 |
Parties | ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND v. Richard SEIDEN. |
Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Melvin Hirshman, Bar Counsel and Gail Kessler, Asst. Bar Council for Atty. Grievance Com'n of Maryland, for petitioner.
Diane Goldsmith, Baltimore, for respondent.
Argued before BELL, C.J., ELDRIDGE, RAKER, WILNER, CATHELL, HARRELL and BATTAGLIA, JJ.
On April 16, 2002, the Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland, petitioner, by Melvin Hirshman, Bar Counsel, and Gail D. Kessler, Assistant Bar Counsel, filed a petition1 for disciplinary action against Richard Seiden, respondent, for multiple violations of the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct (MRPC). The petition alleged that respondent, based upon his representation of Penelope L. Mentlik, had violated MRPC 1.1, 1.15(b) and 8.4(a) and (d).2
On April 17, 2002, pursuant to Maryland Rule 16-709 et seq., this Court transmitted the matter to Judge Thomas J. Bollinger, Sr. of the Circuit Court of Baltimore County to conduct a hearing and to make findings of fact and conclusions of law.3 On June 13, 2002, an evidentiary hearing was held before the hearing judge. On November 14, 2002, Judge Bollinger issued his Memorandum Opinion and found by clear and convincing evidence that respondent violated MRPC 1.1, 1.15(b) and 8.4. The record was transferred from the hearing judge to our Court for oral argument. Pursuant to Maryland Rule 16-711(b)(2),4 respondent filed with this Court exceptions to the hearing judge's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.
Respondent was admitted to the Bar of Maryland on November 16, 1978 and maintains his practice of law in his office located in Baltimore County. The Petition for Disciplinary Action in this case was based upon the complaint of Penelope L. Mentlik, BC Docket No. 2001-234-3-9. Her complaint was initially made by a letter dated December 27, 2000.
Judge Bollinger's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are, in part, as follows:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
In Attorney Grievance Commission v. Harris, 371 Md. 510, 539-40, 810 A.2d 457, 474-75 (2002), we recently stated:
784 A.2d at 523 (quoting Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Mooney, 359 Md. 56, 79, 753 A.2d 17, 29 (2000)), when we said:
` [Emphasis added.]
794 A.2d at 100. We adopt, however, only those portions of the hearing judge's conclusions of law that find the respondent in violation of MRPC 1.1, 1.15(b), 8.4(a) and 8.4(d). We shall sustain respondent's exception as to the hearing judge's conclusion that respondent's actions constituted theft and a criminal act. Petitioner filed no exceptions in this Court.
Respondent makes two specific exceptions to the hearing judge's conclusions of law. Respondent's exceptions, however, for all intents and purposes, can be merged into a single general exception to the last paragraph of the hearing judge's conclusions of law, discussed infra. Respondent's exceptions encompass the fact that the hearing judge found a general violation of the entire MRPC 8.4 when respondent was only charged with violations of MRPC 8.4(a) and (d). These exceptions, however, do not encompass an exception to the hearing judge's conclusions that respondent violated MRPC 1.1, 1.15(b), 8.4(a) and 8.4(d). In fact, respondent, in his Exceptions and Response to Recommendation for Sanctions, specifically admits his violations of these rules when he stat...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Attorney Grievance v. Whitehead
...against respondent is that he paid himself fees, which he had earned, without prior court approval. Attorney Grievance Commission v. Seiden, 373 Md. 409, 818 A.2d 1108 (2003), is also illustrative. In that case, an attorney managing an estate for a difficult client took his fee from the pro......
-
Attorney Grievance Comm. v. Zuckerman
...(quoting Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. DiCicco, 369 Md. 662, 687, 802 A.2d 1014, 1028 (2002)); see also Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Seiden, 373 Md. 409, 424-25, 818 A.2d 1108, 1117 (2003); Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Jeter, 365 Md. 279, 293, 778 A.2d 390, 398 (2001); Awuah I, 346 Md. at 43......
-
Attorney Grievance v. Smith, 27 September Term, 2007.
...at 392, 692 A.2d at 469; Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Breschi, 340 Md. 590, 599, 667 A.2d 659, 663 (1995). In Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Seiden, 373 Md. 409, 818 A.2d 1108 (2003), we stated: "`It is well established that "[t]his Court has original jurisdiction over attorney disciplinary p......
-
Attorney Grievance Comm'n of Md. v. Sanderson
...judge's findings must be appropriately limited to charges filed by Bar Counsel through the Petition. Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Seiden , 373 Md. 409, 418-19, 818 A.2d 1108 (2003) ; Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Monfried , 368 Md. 373, 378-79 n. 7, 794 A.2d 92 (2002) (citing In re Ruffalo ,......